The Unlawful Arraignment of Jesus Christ

PDF

Well, this morning I want to step away from our study of 1 John to consider what transpired during the last week of our Lord's life here before His death on the cross. And specifically, I want you to turn with me to John 18. Now let me begin by saying — and I really need you to hear me even while you're turning in your Bibles to John 18 — I chose this morning's passage and topic with absolutely no thought about current events. This has nothing to do with events unfolding in New York state. This message is not about a man who, regardless of his legal guilt or innocence, is an immoral sinner. This message is about the perfect, sinless Savior. Everything I say today is completely and solely about one Person, our Lord Jesus Christ. And I want you to hear it in that light.

We live in a world in which justice is often hard to find. Phrases like a travesty of justice and miscarriage of justice are frankly part of the landscape of our judicial system. Sometimes, those expressions describe the real but tragic injustice that goes along with living in a broken world. Other times, the claim of injustice is just a legal strategy to cover real wrongdoing, a kind of legal smokescreen. But the greatest real travesty of justice in human history happened to the one Person who was the most profoundly innocent, Jesus of Nazareth, our Lord.

Now, it's important to understand that the issue of justice matters to God. In fact, in Deuteronomy 16:18-20, God said this to the Israelites:

You shall appoint for yourself judges and officers in all your towns which the LORD your God is giving you…and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous. Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue.

Those commands from Deuteronomy were affirmed wholeheartedly in the first century when our Lord lived. But tragically, they were not followed in the trial of our Lord. It was in every sense a kangaroo court, meaning that justice didn't proceed slowly and carefully, but by huge leaps over evidence to a decision.

Let's read it together, John 18:12-24. You follow along as I read:

So the Roman cohort and the commander and the officers of the Jews, arrested Jesus and bound Him, and led him to Annas first; for he was father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. Now Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient for one man to die on behalf of the people.

Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest, but Peter was standing at the door outside. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the doorkeeper, and brought Peter in. Then the slave-girl who kept the door said to Peter, "You are not also one of this man's disciples, are you?" He said, "I am not." Now the slaves and the officers were standing there, having made a charcoal fire, for it was cold and they were warming themselves; and Peter was also with them, standing and warming himself.

The high priest then questioned Jesus about His disciples, and about His teaching. Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and I spoke nothing in secret. Why do you question Me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them; they know what I said." When He had said this, one of the officers standing nearby struck Jesus, saying, "Is that the way You answer the high priest? Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, testify of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?" So Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.

Now, the story of Jesus' arrest, His arraignment, and the series of trials that unfolds reads like a modern crime drama. It's filled with seedy characters, an innocent Victim, unlikely witnesses, and huge political intrigue. Sadly, it's also the story of a tragic abuse of power and a gross misjustice that's done to the innocent One. Israel's leaders, in carrying out these trials, intended to establish Jesus' guilt. But His trials proved instead His spotless innocence.

Now, let me briefly survey the events of that night so you have context. Jesus' legal ordeal began with His arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, probably around midnight on Thursday night. That arrest was followed by a series of hearings and trials. First, there were three Jewish ecclesiastical trials. There was an arraignment before Annas around 12:00 or 1:00 a.m. on that Friday morning; we just read about that in John 18. That was followed by a hearing before Caiaphas and a quorum of the Sanhedrin shortly thereafter, probably around 2:00 a.m. on that Friday morning. Then shortly after first light, somewhere around 5:00 to 5:30 a.m., the Sanhedrin reconvened, this time in their normal meeting place on the Temple Mount for a formal conviction and sentencing of Jesus. But make no mistake: That third Jewish trial was just a formality. The decision had already been reached.

Now, the charge in these three Jewish trials was blasphemy. That isn't obvious in the first of those trials we just read here in John 18. But it becomes very clear in the second Jewish trial, in both Matthew's account, and in Mark's. The same charge of blasphemy was brought at the formal Jewish proceeding just after daybreak on the Temple Mount. And as a result of the verdict at that third Jewish trial, they immediately, then, took Jesus to Pilate. And the reason for that was because under Roman law, the Sanhedrin could not put anyone to death. You can understand why the Romans wouldn't want that to happen, because any group of leaders in any place that they ruled might find indelicate ways to put to death pro-Roman leaders. So, they weren't allowed to carry out the death penalty.

Therefore, two things had to happen; two things had to change when the Jewish leaders took Jesus to Pilate. First of all, the jurisdiction had to change. The Romans had to be involved to carry out the death penalty. And secondly, the charge had to change, because the Romans would never put someone to death on the charge of blasphemy against the Jewish religion. So, they changed the charge. Jesus was convicted in the Jewish trials for blasphemy, but when they take him to Pilate, the charge is sedition; it's rebellion. Luke 23:14, Pilate himself says, "You brought this man to me as one who incites [the people to] rebellion."

Within the next three to four hours, depending on exactly when sunrise occurred that day, there were then three Roman civil trials. There was an initial hearing before Pilate, and then secondly, there was a hearing before Herod. When Pilate heard early on, in his questioning of Jesus, that Jesus was from Galilee, under Herod's jurisdiction, he sent Jesus to Herod, who was in Jerusalem for the Passover. Now, if you've wondered how all of these events could happen so quickly, you need to understand that Herod's palace in Jerusalem had two identical palaces, separated by a courtyard. And at the feast time, the Roman governor Pilate stayed in one of those palaces. And just across the courtyard was Herod, who had come to Jerusalem for the Passover, and so He sends Him to Herod. Herod questioned Jesus and then returned Him to Pilate. Then there was a final trial before Pilate. Jesus was again declared innocent, and then unjustly condemned to death. As you know, by 9:00 a.m. on that Friday morning, the soldiers had executed the sentence of death by crucifixion.

Now, understanding the flow of the trials, only John the apostle, in his gospel, explains what happened right after Jesus' arrest at the first Jewish trial. It was a preliminary hearing. Under Jewish law, it was supposed to be His arraignment, but whatever else it was, it was a travesty of justice. Let's look at it together. John's the only one who records it, and it's the only one of the three Jewish trials that he records. As the story unfolds here, we first of all see the unlawful circumstances of Jesus' arrest in verses 12-14. Look at verse 12: "So the Roman cohort and the commander and the officers of the Jews, arrested Jesus and bound him."

Now here, in summary, is what happened in or just outside the Garden of Gethsemane. The Garden of Gethsemane was a walled private garden at the foot of the Mount of Olives, just to the east of the city wall. If you were to stand on the Temple Mount, where the temple itself was in the first century, and you were to walk east, you would go down into the Kidron Valley, a deep valley, and as you started out of that valley you would ascend the Mount of Olives. But at the foot of the Mount of Olives was the Garden of Gethsemane. Judas knew the place, and He led what, we're told in verse 12, was a large group there.

Notice, first of all, the officers of the Jews. That refers to the members of the Temple Guard; in effect, the Jewish temple police. But the Jewish leaders were very concerned about what might happen when they went to arrest Jesus, for a couple of reasons. One, because of His popularity with the people. They knew He had huge audiences listening to Him. That happened throughout the Passion week on the Temple Mount, particularly on Monday and Tuesday, and also because of when it was. Remember, it's Passover week. And at Passover week the population of Jerusalem swelled, Josephus and other historians tell us, by at least 200,000 guests. And so, they were concerned about what might happen, a riot that might break out, if this popular Preacher from Nazareth, from Galilee, was arrested.

And so, they asked Pilate to send some Roman soldiers with them as they made the arrest. And this made sense as well historically, because every year at feast times, many auxiliary Roman troops from Caesarea, where they were stationed over on the coast of the Mediterranean, were temporarily added to the troops stationed at the Fortress Antonia. On the corner of the Temple Mount there was a fort called the Fortress Antonia. That's where the Roman soldiers were garrisoned in order to keep the peace, and more were there during the time when so many extra people had come to Jerusalem.

John tells us that Pilate sent a cohort of soldiers. Now normally, a cohort of Roman soldiers was 600 troops. It's unlikely that all 600 went, but that same Greek word can mean a portion of a cohort, and is often used that way, commonly to describe a group of 200 men. And that's likely what we're talking about here. John adds that these Roman soldiers were accompanied by the cohort commander, there in verse 12. The commander, literally the chiliarc, the ruler of a thousand; tribune. This was the man who was responsible for the entire 600 men, but he went with the 200 that were dispatched on this special duty because of the potential risk and danger to the peace.

Luke adds that some chief priests and some members of the Sanhedrin came with this group as well. So put on your sanctified imagination for a moment and imagine what this must have looked like as this group of some 200 soldiers plus temple police from the Jewish side plus some members of the Sanhedrin and the leaders all trek out of the eastern wall of the city of Jerusalem, down the Kidron Valley and over to the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus and the eleven are. This group of [200] to 300 soldiers, along with some of the Jewish leaders, shows up at the garden to arrest Jesus. And John mentions, in verse 12, that as was probably typical for an arrest both then and even in our day, they bound Jesus. Verse 13 says, "and led Him to Annas first; for he was father-in- law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year." There is so much political intrigue in that verse.

Let me unpack it for you. Notice, first of all, the end of the verse tells us that all of this happened while Caiaphas was high priest. Now, the position of high priest, you may be prone to think, was populated by some deeply spiritual person. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The position of high priest had become a political prize. The Romans typically gave it to the one that they thought could keep the people and their leaders in line. But it was more than that. There was a seedy side to who served as the high priest. A couple of historians and experts in Roman law and in Judea in the first century tell us that it was essentially purchased. The position of high priest was leased to the highest qualified bidder for an annual fee. You paid to be high priest. You paid for the privilege if you were qualified to serve in that role.

From the time of Herod the Great through 70 AD, there were 25 high priests. Twenty-two of the 25 belonged to just four powerful families, and none of them was more powerful than the family Caiaphas had married into. Notice, John tells us his father-in-law was a man named Annas. Ironically, Annas' name comes from the Hebrew Hananiah, which means Yahweh is gracious. Nothing could be farther from the truth about this man. Annas had actually served as high priest himself, from the year 6 AD to 15 AD, but then he was deposed by Pilate's predecessor. But even after being deposed, he was such a powerful man, such a powerful family, that he represented, that after he was deposed, five of his sons, and his son-in-law Caiaphas, would serve as high priest and eventually even a grandson. Caiaphas, the current high priest when all of this is unfolding, served for 18 years, the longest of any first-century high priest, from 18 AD through 36 AD.

But it's clear in both secular and biblical records that as powerful a man as Caiaphas was, he answered to his father-in-law. Annas was, without question, the most influential and the most powerful man in all Israel. You'll notice down in verse 19, he's called the high priest. In verse 22, he's called the high priest. Historians and experts in first-century Israel tell us that this was for two reasons. One, out of respect, much as we refer to former presidents as president so and so, but also because of the power that he continued to wield. He was famously wealthy, probably the wealthiest man in the land of Israel at the time. You know how he got his wealth? Most of his wealth came from license fees and commissions from the money changers at the temple, and from those who sold sacrificial animals to worshipers, who came to Jerusalem to offer sacrifice. Listen, Annas was like the godfather of a quasi-legal crime syndicate family. That's how you need to think of Annas.

So, they took Jesus first to Annas, and John wants us to understand that Jesus could not expect to receive a fair trial here. So, he mentions that Annas was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest. And then notice, he adds in verse 14: "Now Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient for one man to die on behalf of the people." He's referring to an event that happened six weeks before, just six weeks. In the late winter of that year, where all of this unfolds, after the raising of Lazarus from the dead, Caiaphas had convened a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin, the 71 men who were Israel's supreme governing body, and they had decided Jesus had to be killed. Look at John 11. Here's where that event is written, verse 49. This is the Sanhedrin, a secret council after the raising of Lazarus: "But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, 'You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and [that] the whole nation, not perish.'"

You know what he was saying? He was saying, "Look, if one innocent man has to die to save the nation, then so be it." Jesus had to go. But it's interesting: He used sacrificial language from the Old Testament. The basic idea is that Jesus has to be sacrificed, like the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement. But as Caiaphas explained His wicked scheme to murder Jesus, God directed him to use words that have an altogether different meaning. Look at verse 51: "Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad." Jesus was going to die in the place of the nation. Caiaphas meant to save the nation politically. God meant to save individuals from their sins spiritually. And so, look at verse 53: "So from that day on they planned together to kill Him."

Go back to our text. By mentioning Caiaphas' previous decision to kill Jesus, we learn that Jesus' arrest wasn't lawful. It had been decided that He needed to die without any evidence really being considered. It was politically expedient. Therefore, we can't expect His arraignment to be lawful. Now, we're going to skip verses 15-18 because John writes his gospel like he writes his letters. There's a spiral structure in which he circles around various subjects. Through Jesus' nighttime trials, John keeps moving the spotlight back and forth between two developing dramas. The first is Jesus' trial before the authorities. The second is Peter's denials. We've studied Peter's denials before, but this morning I just want to focus on the first of those dramas, Jesus before His Jewish accusers. However, before we leave verses 15-18, let me draw out one really important point.

In verses 15-18, we learn that Peter and John witnessed this hearing, so John, Jesus and Peter could all testify what was done and said during Jesus' arraignment. Now, if you didn't know the story and all you knew was the circumstances of Jesus' arrest that I've just explained to you, you might wonder, what kind of criminal are we talking about? How horrible must his crimes be? Those are the unlawful circumstances of Jesus' arrest. Secondly, in verse 19, we see the unlawful nature of Jesus arraignment; after Jesus' arrest, then he's brought first to Annas.

Now, let me give you a little Jewish law so you understand the background. In Jewish law, after a legal arrest, the first step in the legal process was a preliminary hearing in which the accused was officially arraigned. As in our own legal system, the accused was presumed innocent until proven guilty. So, an arrest had to be followed by an arraignment in which a formal criminal charge was made before a judge. And at the arraignment, Jewish law protected the accused from self-incrimination. In fact, it didn't allow the accused to testify at all. A charge could only be brought by witnesses of the crime, and the law specifically stated that those witnesses could not be the judges. If, in the arraignment, the witness's testimony was sufficient, then a formal accusation of a crime was made. In our modern terms, He was indicted. Now, with that basic understanding of Jewish law, let's look at Jesus' arraignment.

Look at verse 19: "The high priest then questioned Jesus about His disciples, and about His teaching." What John wants you to understand is that Jesus' arraignment was illegal in almost every conceivable way. Jesus' arrest was not legal. It was predetermined before there was any evidence against Him. It was the product of a bribe, blood money, offered to Judas. It was arranged without any accusation. I should say He was arraigned without any accusation of wrongdoing, no charge, no accusation was made. There were no witnesses.

Instead, Jesus was illegally questioned. Annas was on a fishing expedition. He was looking for information to use to get Jesus pronounced guilty of a capital offense. Annas tried to get Jesus to incriminate Himself. And even his questioning is very telling. Notice, Annas first asked Jesus about His disciples. That's not about the twelve; the Sanhedrin already knew who they were. Instead, he's really asking Jesus how successful His ministry has been. Isn't that just like a politician? He's not interested in the truth, or justice. He first wants to know the size, the scope of Jesus' organization, and operation. His second question has to do with Jesus' doctrine, His teaching. As you look at verse 19, you need to understand the unlawful nature of this arraignment. It is contrary to Jewish law in almost every way.

That brings us to the third section in this narrative, and that is, Jesus' lawful demand for justice in verses 20-24. Notice Jesus' response. He ignored Annas' first question about His disciples and how many disciples He had, and He addressed the second, and that is His teaching. Verse 20: "Jesus answered him, 'I have spoken openly to the world.'" Openly means candidly, forthrightly, without reserve. In other words, I've been very direct in what I believe. He goes on to say, "I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together." I consistently have done my teaching in public venues. You know what Jesus is saying? Look, if there is a problem with My teaching, then you should be able to find plenty of witnesses. He goes on in verse 20 to say, "And I spoke nothing in secret." Now, of course, Jesus' taught His disciples in private. That's not what He's saying. What He's saying is, He wasn't engaged in some sort of conspiracy where what He taught privately was different and subversive from that which He taught publicly. Nothing He said in private contradicted His public teaching. In fact, as you know from reading the gospels, most of the time, His private ministry to the twelve was what? Answering their questions about what He had taught publicly. They came to Him and said "So, Jesus, what did you mean by that?"

Verse 21: "'Why do you question Me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them; they know what I said.'" Now, when we read that, it might be tempting to see that as potentially disrespectful or even evasive, but it's not. In Greek, the emphasis in the first question is on the pronoun me: "'Why do you question Me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them; they know what I said.'" You know what Jesus was doing? He was demanding that Jewish law be followed. In fact, here in this passage, Jesus implies His support for a couple of principles in our Fifth Amendment. It saddens me that the younger generation today isn't learning to treasure those things that are at the heart of what has made our country a wonderful place to live in the past. And this Fifth Amendment, the guarantees of our Fifth Amendment, really stem from English common law, which in turn can be traced back to the Magna Carta in 1215. Part of the Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination. It states this: "Nor shall any person be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Now, why is that important? Because where that is not the foundation of the law, those in authority can be tempted to use physical force until they get the accused to testify against himself. They can incarcerate or torture the person, or they can threaten family members in order to get a confession, a self-incriminating statement that all too often isn't true but has merely been pulled out of them by threats and intimidation and pain. Jesus refused to testify against Himself.

He's also demanding, here in our text, what another part of the Fifth Amendment provides, and that is, due process of law. Jewish law called for a certain legal process to be followed. And at His arraignment, He should not have been asked to testify against Himself. He shouldn't have been questioned at all. There should be witnesses bringing charges against Him, and Annas should simply be deciding if their testimony called for a formal indictment. I love this, because in essence, Jesus was demanding that His arraignment and His trial be carried out with justice. That shouldn't surprise us, should it? I mean, the One who stood before Annas will someday be the Judge of all, and His judgment will be perfectly just. John 5:22, Jesus says, "'[For] not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son.'" Acts 17:31, Paul says, God "'has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness," and he'll do it "through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.'" Listen, next Sunday, we will celebrate the Resurrection. And there are so many ramifications of the Resurrection, but here's one: The fact that God raised Him from the dead proves that God has chosen Him to be the Judge of all. It proves that you will stand before Jesus Christ. You will either stand before Him as one of His own who has repented and believed in Him, or you will stand before Him as your eternal Judge. But stand before Him you will. There are no exceptions.

Thankfully, we will not receive from Jesus the kind of injustice He received at the hand of Annas. John loves irony in his gospel. Think about the irony in this passage. It just drips with it. Here is Jesus Christ, the only One on the planet who deserves to be High Priest, in the universe, stands face to face with a human high priest who is utterly undeserving and who had paid for his position. The one who is the perfect Judge of all, stands before a series of sinful human judges, the One who is always just and impartial endures history's greatest travesty of justice.

You remember what Jesus said to Pilate in John 19:11? He says to Pilate, "'You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above.'" You understand what that means? Jesus is the only rightful Judge in the universe, and He has delegated a little of that authority to human judges. And He now stands in our text before one little man to whom that authority has been delegated. Do you understand? In this passage, Jesus isn't on trial; Annas is, his political expediency, his gross miscarriage of justice. Jesus, the perfect Judge, is schooling an unjust judge in what should have been done.

Jesus' words here are respectful, but they are stinging. They were a direct confrontation of Annas' abuse of due process, and I would love to have been a fly on the wall. Can you imagine? When Jesus finished His clear indictment of Annas' kangaroo court style of justice, there must have been an awkward silence. But one of Annas' underlings comes to his rescue, verse 22: "When He had said this, one of the officers standing nearby struck Jesus, saying, 'Is that the way You answer the high priest?'" At this point, a member of the Temple Guard, looking perhaps to be noticed, to advance his career, rises in defense of the high priest, and he struck Jesus. The Greek word used here, in its context, probably means to strike with an open hand, to slap. Rather than deal with what Jesus said, he attacks the Person.

Reminds me of the story S. Lewis Johnson tells of the seasoned lawyer who was trying to teach a young lawyer how things work in the courtroom. And he said to him, "If the law is on your side, then emphasize the law. If the facts are on your side, emphasize the evidence. If neither the law nor the facts are on your side, attack the other lawyer." Well, here this officer attacks Jesus. He slaps Jesus. Alfred Edersheim, the great Jewish scholar referring to this blow to Jesus, writes this: "Humanity itself seems to reel and stagger under this blow, for he struck a blow for human nature, and human nature has been taking this position against Jesus Christ down through the years."

Notice the officer didn't address what Jesus said, but how He said it: "'Is that the way You answer the high priest?'" And the reason for that is because historians tell us that those who appeared before the Sanhedrin fell all over themselves to appear submissive and respectful. Why? Well, because of the ramifications. They would never have spoken like this, so directly, confrontationally, to Annas for fear of the repercussions. The high priest was the most powerful man in the country under the Romans, and Annas was the most powerful of all. He could have you excommunicated from the synagogue, and that was no little thing. In the Jewish culture, if that happened, it meant no Jewish person could do business with you. It meant your family cut you off entirely. You were completely persona non grata, unwelcome and unwanted. In this way, the Sanhedrin was more powerful than the Romans, because they could make your entire life an island in the middle of your nation.

But notice Jesus' response. He doesn't comment on how He spoke, but what He spoke. Verse 23: "Jesus answered him, 'If I have spoken wrongly, testify of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?'" Jesus again goes back to what He said: If I have spoken wrongly, if I've said something that's wrong, that's out of line, that's not lawful, testify of that. It was against the law, by the way, to use physical violence against someone who'd been indicted but not convicted. So again, Jesus was reminding them of the law. He'd not been found guilty of anything. No testimony had been brought. Therefore, He didn't deserve to be struck. Annas, at this point, realizes that he's going to get nothing helpful out of Jesus, nothing incriminating. Verse 24: "So Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest."

Annas' questioning of Jesus at least accomplished one thing, and that is, it allowed Caiaphas time to assemble at least a quorum of the Sanhedrin across the courtyard. It's now about 2:00 a.m., probably. Annas and Caiaphas likely shared a common courtyard. They certainly both lived on the western hill of ancient Jerusalem where the wealthy and influential lived at the time. So, the illegal arraignment of Jesus Christ was over. Now, don't miss what's happened here. His case is being transferred to the Sanhedrin, as if clear evidence had been given by witnesses, enough clear evidence to indict Him of a crime worthy of capital punishment. But it was a joke. It was a miscarriage of justice, a kangaroo court.

Now the question is, why does John record this account? What's the point? He's the only one of the gospel writers who includes this first Jewish trial, this arraignment. What's he trying to teach us? Well, there are potentially several points. Let me concentrate on two. First of all, it's included in part to help us see ourselves in Annas, because you see, looking at Annas is like every unbeliever looking in the mirror. Why did Annas reject Jesus? Listen carefully: For the same reasons unbelievers reject Him today. What were those reasons? Annas had three problems with Jesus. First of all, Jesus was a threat to his position and power. Look back at John 11:47, this is, again, back after the raising of Lazarus: "Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened [a] council, and were saying, 'What are we doing? [For] this man is performing many signs. If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and'" — notice this — "'take away both our place,'" our position, our power, our prestige, "'and our nation,'" as it exists now. So, Jesus was a very real threat to Annas' position, his power. There are a whole lot of people who don't want Jesus messing up the deal they've got.

Secondly, Jesus was a threat to his personal wealth and business and therefore to his personal pleasure. In Mark 11 — I won't take you there — but in Mark 11:15-18, it's Monday of the Passion week, and for the second time in His ministry, Jesus goes onto the Temple Mount. And you know what He does? He turns over the tables of the money changers and He drives out the sellers of animals. Guess whose business that was? It's Annas'. It was his personal empire and therefore his personal pleasure. The things that came from that empire were threatened by Jesus. And there are a whole lot of people today who will not have Jesus to rule over them because of the threat to their personal pleasure. I want what I want. I want my life and the things I enjoy. And I don't want Jesus messing that up.

Thirdly, there was a threat to his religion. Most of the high priestly aristocracy, like Annas, were Sadducees. Not Pharisees, but Sadducees. And the Sadducees were anti-supernaturalists. They didn't believe God intervenes in the world. They didn't believe in angels. And here's a big one: They didn't believe in a bodily resurrection. Don't forget, six weeks before this, two miles from the Temple Mount, just over the Mount of Olives in Bethany, Jesus had shown up. And the one time in His ministry, He actually staged a miracle for the maximum possible effect. He shows up four days after Lazarus' death, and He raises him from the dead. Uh oh. The Sadducees have a problem, because then Jesus says, and I'm going to do the same thing for everybody who believes in Me. So faced with Jesus, Annas had to make a choice — don't miss this — Annas could either sincerely evaluate the evidence about Jesus of Nazareth, or he could protect his position, his power, his prosperity, his pleasure, and his religion. And I don't need to tell you what he decided.

Folks, during our lives here — let me talk about you — during your life here, you sit in the seat of Annas. You can sit in judgment on Jesus Christ: "Is He who He claimed to be? Is following Him worth giving up my life, my position, my prosperity, my pleasure, my religion?" Right now, you can sit in judgment of Jesus Christ, just like Annas did. But imagine what it will be like on the Day of Judgment when Annas stands before Jesus Christ. And imagine what it will be like for everyone who sits in judgment of Jesus today and decides against Him: "Either I don't believe He is who He claimed, or He's just not worth giving up all the good things of this life for." Listen, if you're here this morning and you've not believed in Jesus Christ, you can sit in judgment on Him today. But someday you will stand before Him as your Judge. And I want you to imagine, for a moment, what it will be like to try to explain to Him why you made the choices you've made, because that will happen. I beg you, don't be Annas, don't come to his decision.

Another reason this passage is here, and the main reason, is this: To prove Jesus' innocence. You see, Jesus was accused of two capital offenses. In the Jewish trials, you remember, the charge was blasphemy. In the Roman trials, the charge was insurrection, rebellion. No less than four times, Pilate pronounces Jesus innocent of sedition, of rebellion, and the charge of blasphemy. That's only true if His claims were proven to be false. But no evidence was ever considered. No witnesses were called. That's because the verdict was already decided six weeks before. This was nothing but a kangaroo court, a gross miscarriage of justice. The death of Jesus was not a justified act of capital punishment. It was an unjustified mob lynching. Jesus was not executed. He was murdered. That's why Isaiah says He was "like a lamb that [is] led to the slaughter." This paragraph serves one primary purpose, and that is to prove that the arrest and the arraignment of Jesus were, in fact, illegal. There's absolutely no evidence that He'd committed any crime, much less a capital crime.

Therefore, as in our own legal system, that means every decision, every legal decision that flowed from His illegal arrest and His illegal arraignment was, in turn, illegal. Case should have been thrown out. But this has huge ramifications on Jesus' claims and, in turn, on the entire Christian faith. By showing that Jesus was innocent not only before God, and that was already clear, because twice during His ministry, God spoke from heaven and said what? "This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." But He was also innocent before every human court. And in showing that, John established Jesus' credentials to die in the place of sinners, because only a perfectly innocent, righteous One could stand and substitute for those who aren't, the just for the unjust. Which is exactly what happened.

Turn back to Isaiah 53. Isaiah really punctuates this. Isaiah 53:7, and I want you to notice the wording here: "He was oppressed" — the Messiah, Jesus, our Lord. "He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth; like a lamb that is led to slaughter, [and] like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so He did not open His mouth." Verse 8: "By oppression and judgment He was taken away." We just read about it. We just studied it. Look at verse 9: "His grave was assigned with wicked men," but those thieves who hung on each side. "Yet He was with a rich man in His death," Joseph Arimathea's tomb. Why? "Because He had done no violence, nor was there any deceit in His mouth." In other words, God concluded He was legally innocent and morally pure. So why? Why did He die? Look back at the second half of verse 8: "[And] as for His generation, who considered that He was cut off out of the land of the living," He died. Why? "For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?" Verse 10: The Lord, Yahweh the Father, "was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief." And He, that is, the Messiah Himself, Jesus, [would] "render Himself as a guilt offering." There's the reason for His death. He was the perfect fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrifice and the sacrificial system. And therefore, "He will see His offspring" — that's those who believe in Him — and "He will prolong His days." That implies the resurrection. You don't get cut off out of the land of the living and prolong your days unless you experience what? A resurrection. Verse 11: "As the result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; by His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many," — how? — "as He will bear their iniquities." The innocent one for the guilty, the just for the unjust.

This week, as you read about and meditate on our Lord's Passion week, think about this: The injustice that Jesus received was the justice you and I deserved. Look again at verse 8: "He was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?" Or, in the words of the angel, to Joseph before Jesus' birth, "Call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." When you read the trials, and you see Jesus again and again declared innocent and then condemned to death, remind yourself that that was for you. He was perfectly qualified as the only innocent One, to offer His life in the place of us, the guilty ones.

Let's pray together. Father, thank You for our time together this morning. I pray for us who know and love Your Son. Lord, may this week be a wonderful week of remembrance and a deepening of our understanding of what our Lord accomplished on our behalf. And as a result, may we believe in Him more deeply, may we love Him, and may we be committed to grow in following Him as Teacher and Lord. Father, for those who are here, whether they're part of our church family and come regularly, or whether they're our guests, but they've never really bowed the knee to Jesus Christ: Lord, help them to see that Jesus isn't on trial, even today. They are on trial. And Father, I pray that they would humble themselves. And in the words of the tax collector in Jesus' story, may they call out, "God be merciful to me, the sinner," all because of the life, death and resurrection of the innocent One, in whose Name we pray. Amen.